change_user_password

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add a permission requirement (Requires ADMIN) and clarifies that it targets another user rather than the caller. However, it omits potential side effects such as session invalidation, whether the change is reversible, or how the password object is processed—leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences, one stating the action and one the permission requirement. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary detail or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is moderately complex due to the password object parameter, which is not self-explanatory. The description does not mention the return value (though output schema exists), nor does it clarify the password object's structure or any side effects. The gap in parameter semantics makes the description incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It provides no explanation of 'user_id' or the 'password' object's expected structure (e.g., what fields or format are required). The password object with additionalProperties is unusual and needs clarification, but the description offers none.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the action ('Change another user's password') and the target ('another user's'), distinguishing it clearly from change_my_password. The verb is specific and the resource is unambiguous, making the tool's purpose immediately evident.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context by indicating that this tool changes another user's password, implicitly excluding self-service use (which is handled by change_my_password). It also states the permission requirement ('Requires ADMIN'), giving a condition for when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or discuss scenarios where one might choose this over them.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.